Summary
The Supreme Court set aside Armed Forces Tribunal orders favouring selection promotion for an officer whose court-martial proceedings had been annulled. Consequential benefits did not automatically confer promotions dependent on comparative merit. The Selection Board had assessed his whole profile and found him unsuitable for selection as Colonel; the Tribunal could not substitute its assessment by isolating his better overall confidential-report grading. Its award of Rs. 5 lakh costs was also set aside.
Issues
- Whether consequential benefits following annulment of court-martial proceedings included automatic selection promotion to ranks reached by juniors.
- Whether the Tribunal could overturn the Selection Board’s cumulative assessment by relying on one favourable grading or disregarding an earlier reprimand.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 10(f), Army Selection Policy dated 6 May 1987The policy treated character, disciplinary background and decorations as inputs to an officer’s overall profile. Considering the 1991 reprimand was consistent with it; other comparative shortcomings independently remained. (¶ 9)
Held
- Consequential benefits in the annulment order restored benefits directly denied by the court-martial proceedings, such as salary and emoluments. They did not automatically confer promotions based on comparative merit and selection, even though the officer had lost nearly nine years of service. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The later Law Officer’s opinion supporting promotion was inconsistent with the applicable rules and the law in K.D. Gupta. The Department could record its reservations; the Tribunal attached undue importance to that opinion. (¶ 7)
- Selection expertise belongs to the duly constituted Board. Judicial review permits scrutiny for such defects as illegality, material procedural irregularity or proved mala fides, rather than a fresh comparison of candidates’ merits. No relevant consideration had been omitted or irrelevant factor included here. (¶¶ 5, 10)
- The Board assessed six parameters cumulatively. A better overall confidential-report grading did not displace lower assessments on other parameters; even excluding the reprimand, the officer compared unfavourably with the three officers considered, including one who was not empanelled. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The prejudice of the wrongful court-martial did not permit sympathy to override selection merit. The officer had received time-scale promotion as Colonel, which was distinct from empanelment by selection. (¶ 12)
Result
Both appeals allowed; Tribunal judgments dated 17 January and 12 September 2017, including the Rs. 5 lakh costs award, set aside. No order as to costs.